mckamx

I am seeing wonky behavior for SOI change alarms when I have multiple vessels in flight. A single SOI alarm seems to work correctly. If I add a 2nd or subsequent SOI alarm for a different vessel, the alarm seems to change its time to the SOI change for the CURRENT selected vessel, not the vessel the alarm was created for. I can sort of work around this by using manual alarms, but it seriously detracts from the usefulness of the app. I am getting close to installing KAC and seeing if I can get it to work in 1.12.

Got a bunch of science home from Duna & Ike, enough to complete the tech tree.

Jeb is at my ISRU station orbiting Ike, waiting for the next Duna --> Kerbin window. Hanging out and sampling rocket fuel.

Yes, and flags are not always being credited correctly. Usually the flags show up on the "credited on this mission" window, but don't show up as permanently credited. Hopefully, it's just a "recompile for 1.0.5 issue, but Nereid hasn't been real active on the forum lately, so he may be busy doing other things.

...or use KIS to bolt a couple more landing gear on. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113111-1-0-4-Kerbal-Inventory-System-%28KIS%29-1-2-2

Two simple ways to dock: 1. Only works if docking port is coaxial with the main engine. Bring two ships close to each other (~10 m) and not moving relative to each other. Point their docking ports at each other. Burn about 1 m/s on one ship towards the other. If you are lined up properly, the ships will dock. 2. MechJeb docking autopilot. Inefficient, but mostly works.

According to https://kerbaledit.codeplex.com/license, this mod uses the MIT License:

Experimenting with Civilian Population mod http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124162-1-0-4-Civilian-Population-1-7-4-%28update-9-4-15%29

two words: air brakes. they not only slow you down without burning off, they also allow some degree of attitude control (if placed well).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy for problems with the "pull is more stable" hypothesis.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113111-1-0-4-Kerbal-Inventory-System-%28KIS%29-1-2-1 Allows you to attach components that you forgot, or just decided you didn't need until you got back to kerbin (e.g. parachutes).

I've had this happen on several part recovery contracts. I find that if I get a Kerbal close enough, one of two things will happen: 1. The part will fall out of the sky and come to rest on the surface, where I can use a grabber to attach it to my lander (and, if I am _very_ careful with the throttle and the gravity is low enough, i can boost it to orbit), or 2. The part will fall out of the sky and explode, terminating the contract with a failure. Either option works for me.

one of the hacks in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78863-FIX-Dock-Undocking-Bug-in-0-23-5 may fix the problem. Docking ports can get into strange states were they don't work as expected.

Actually, 1.0 - 1.3 km separation after doing a Hohmann transfer and velocity matching isn't too bad. Once you get to this separation, point one ship at the other and burn about 2 m/s. wait until your separation hits a minimum, then match velocities again. Repeat until you get to within docking range.

My current speculation (I haven't done the math to see if it deserves hypothesis status): the low thrust is what is causing the efficiency problems. Details: I am doing a burn within the Jool system, where the gravity well is fairly deep. If I was doing an impulse burn (full deltaV change in 0 time), the MechJeb prediction would be true. However, because I am spreading my burn over a long time, each instant of burn I have to subtract off the current SOI gravity field from my thrust. In a low gravity field, or with high TWR, this is negligible. However, in a high gravity field, with very low TWR, my thrust may be only a few times the gravity field, so the net effect is a very inefficient burn.

I installed DSEV for the centrifugal system. However, after getting a contract to test the SuperNova engine, I decide to give it a try. My first design had insufficient radiator panels (it was a testbed system, after all), so I cracked down the thrust limiter to keep the radiators from melting. However, on its first real mission (Jool and back), I noticed that the Delta-V listed for the propulsion module by both MechJeb and KER did not match what I was actually seeing - it was taking almost twice as much LiquidFuel to make a maneuver as MechJeb and KER was saying it should. I see several possibilities for why the engine is not working as I expect: * I am assuming the thrust limiter essentually just dials back the throttle, so has no effect on DeltaV or ISP * I am assuming that the maneuver node deltaV, when the orbit radius is large (so prograde is basically constant for the length of the burn) should closely reflect the deltaV loss reported by MechJeb / KER after completing the maneuver. * I noticed an oddity - that MechJeb was reporting "angle to prograde" as 93 deg, when the burn was almost exactly prograde according to the navball and my understanding * I am using DSEV v0.3.13 (once something is basically working, I usually change versions only when I change game saves, which is usually when a new version of KSP is released) Can anyone give me some pointers on what might be happening here?

Tried again with purpose-built craft (a bit overengineered) using ion drives. I also changed the flight profile: looped out almost to Minmus, then back in again to give more distance and time for low-G acceleration before SOI change. Got to 22285.7 m/s, but I don't think I will get to leader position with ion drives, since the SOI just isn't big enough to allow enough accel time.

Achieve velocity of 15967.2 at SOI change, using deep-space satellite design

Launched my first expedition to one of the Outer Planets Mod (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104280-0-90-Outer-Planets-Mod-%281-6%29-Urlum-has-its-first-moons!-15-Mar) planets, Sarnus in this case. I am sending Friendly, one of my F-class interplanetary vessels with 2 type 4 drop tanks, an artificial gravity habitation module/lighted snackhouse (10 years there and back again is a bit long for zero-G), and a Dingy for low-G landings.

I have started using the centrifugal rotation parts from Deep Space Exploration Vessels (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87070-WIP-0-90-Deep-Space-Exploration-Vessels-0-3-9) to allow rotation of the habitation modules of my permanent stations. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70414588/PS2Kerbin1.mp4 I have found that docking is considerably more challenging - the stations tend to precess some while the hab modules are rotating. Also, since the part motions are accomplished using Infernal Robotics, I have occasional problems with "base creep" that can be a problem with Infernal Robotics parts.

If you are open to non-stock, the Firespitter electric engine can allow you to build an infintite delta-V flyer that works on Eve. This particular design has a top speed of about 120 m/s, and a ceiling on Eve of about 20km, but can take off and land on a dime.

In my experience, the issues with moving large asteroids around are: 1. the larger the asteroid, the more fuel required to generate the necessary delta-V. 2. with large asteroids, maintaining your heading is difficult because any offset from the asteroid CoM will cause large torques. The effect of this is that, even with massive reaction wheels, you have to keep your thrust down when pushing an asteroid. The design implications of this are that TWR is not your friend - add more reaction wheels, and leave off the extra engines. Get used to VERY long (1-2 hour) low-thrust burns to achieve orbit changes. I can send you a craft file if you want, but it is not stock - I use SnackPartsByWhyren, SmartParts, MechJeb, and others on most of my ships.

I tried a similar docking port technique a couple months back. The problem I ran into is that if you don't get the rotation to exactly 0 deg on all docked segments, the last segment won't line up on both ends.

I think the problem you are fighting is that your coordinate systems track only current position, and change in current position (vector). You also need to worry about angular positions and velocities around your current CoM position. This will require 3 more numbers for current angle of each axis off from the local coordinate system. You might be able to reduce it to 2 numbers by using a polar coordinate system, but I think the calculations for a 3-axis system would be simpler and faster than having to do constant transforms.

In my first practical use of a spaceplane, I carried my Eve Flyer craft to orbit. I first tried carrying it up in a vertical launch rocket, but the aerodynamics (in stock) were too strange to let the rocket stay on course. One flyer on the back of another was much more controllable. I have my doubts about my Eve expedition - I think I may be trying to send too many craft in one expedition - the ship is getting so long that it may end up uncontrollably wobbly.